SUMMARY: "Copper People - Craniofacial Morphometric Variation and Phenetic Relationships in Copper Age Group from Italy" -Results of a comparitive morphometric analysis on Copper Age craniofacial samples from Italian territory are presented. In a first test, craniometric data collects ex novo exclusively by the research group of the Laboratorio di Archeoantropologia of the Sopreintendenza per i Beni Archeologici della Toscana were used. In a second test, data from literature including Italian Neolithic data, were put together with the database of the first test. In a third test, further comparative data were added coming from literature and available only in the form of averages for males. These data are from European, North Africa and Near East samples dating from Mesolithic to Early Bronze Age. Multivariate analysis methods were utilized in order to assess morphometric relationships among the groups, including the computation of phenetic distance matrices (Mahalanobis D2 distances, Euclidean distances) which were processed by Multidimensional Scaling. Among the results, the following findings are worth of note: 1) a greater resemblence among certain groups, namely Gaudo, Fontenoce, and South-Central Tuscany on one side, among Remedello, Northern-Tuscany/Liguria and (maybe) Anghelu Ruju on another, and finally between Rinaldone and Isnello, is observable; 2) certain Neolithic groups seem morphologically closer to Copper Age Italian groups: Central Italy Neolithic group, Cardial Pottery, greek (Nea Nikomedea and others) Neolithic group and Starcevo. On the contrary, other Italian Neolithic groups appear morphologically more distant from Copper Age Italian groups: the Vasi a Bocca Quadrata groups from Liguria and from North-Eastern Italy, and Villeneuve; 3) overall, Copper Age Italian groups resulted more comparable with other coeval groups from South-Western Europe (Chalcolithic group from Languedoc, Almeria/Los Millares, Bell Beaker groups from several countries, Siene-Oise-Marne and Wartberg), and with Early Bronze Age groups from the Mediterranean Basin (from Tuscany, Cyprus and Anatolia).

The graphic was not easy to read, so I added the names of the cultures and made the Mesolithic and Neolithic groups appear as triangles, the Copper Age groups as Circles and the Bronze Age groups as squares...

These types of studies are more akin to admixture results than anything related to a single haplogroup. As with admixture, groups usually cluster by geography. For this reason, overall trends and outliers are important to consider. People also tend to see what they want to see in these things, so here are my observations, but others might see something else:

Bell Beakers:- The Portugese Bell Beaker Group (54) is closest to the Italian Impressed Ware Group (36)...(this is the part where Gioiello shouts out the window like the Azzurri just won the World Cup). Now I know that the only Cardial (or Epi-Cardial) samples have tested G2a, but they all had exactly the same haplotype, so the jury is still out out on the group. On the other hand, it could be possible that the first Bell Beaker pottery in Iberia was produced by a non-R1b group and that it later spread to R1b groups.- The Spanish Bell Beaker Group (53) is closest to the Belgian Siene-Oise-Marne Group (55), the French Narbonne Copper Age Group (59) and the northern Italian Remedello Group (62).- The Czech Bell Beaker (51) and German Bell Beaker Group (52) are closest to the Italian Copper Age Fontenoce Age Group of the central Adriatic (64), the Italian Copper Age Gaudo Group (67), the Early Bronze Age Tuscan Groups of Scorglietto and Belvedere (73) and Early Bronze Age Cypriot Group (74).

Kurgans: - The two groups that are closer to each other than any other two on the graph are the Yamnaya (43) and the Ukranian Bronze Age Group (71). IMO this makes it all the more likely that R1b was never a major player in Ukrainian Steppe as the Bronze Age Ukrainians look exactly like the Copper Age Ukrainians and visa-versa. - There are two Corded Ware groups, one from Germany & Poland (47) and the other from Estonia & Russia (44). The two groups are polar opposites of the Bell Beaker groups and appear much closer to the Yamnaya and Ukrainian Bronze Age groups. We already know Corded Ware samples have been confirmed as R1a and I think this further points to Yamnaya being high in R1a.- The Corded Ware Estonia & Russia group is closest to the Ukrainian Mesolithic group (1). Again, we are probably looking at high R1a in those areas since the Mesolithic.

This basically supports what I've posted more recently on the Beaker phenotypes in that they have stronger associations with the previous neolithic cultures west of the steppe. There is Yamnaya cultural influence to Beaker, but the physical type is too different as a whole given the similiar timeframe.

I've been collecting data from the various periods when I can find it and so far the late neolithic cultures closest to Beaker are Baden and Globular Amphora. This is based on cranial index and upper facial index which might provide the "best picture" of what these people looked like. These are not antecedent cultures, but it gives an idea of where this physical type which became important with Beaker originated, i.e. Central and Eastern Europe. It is also the same region where U106 has high variance and where a lot of the Beaker common ware/ceramic influences come from in the right time period.

This is no substitute, however, for aDNA because Oetzi(G2a), the Iceman I have closest to the Sredny Stog steppe culture although there is several hundred years difference. Oetzi had a short, broad upper face possibly from his ancestor'sadmixing with Mesolithic people. In the closest time-frame to Remedello, he is closerto the Vucedol culture which makes more sense. This leads me to believe the proto-Beaker people of whatever cultures (pred. R1b?) mixed with mesolithic females to produce the Dinaric or Beaker physical type by the time of the late neolithic. This isalso when there seems to be a resurgence of U5/reduction of mtdna J, T, N in the aDNA record.

I thank you for posting this, but, whether your analysis is true, where did R1b spring up from?After many years of studies and polemics, I must do my palinode. The answer is in a new book of the Bible recently discovered:

“Conclusion.It is possible to get bogged down in technical considerations.The bottom line is that R1b has not been found in Europe from before 750 BCE.Based on the limited findings we have at present it would seem that R1b did not reach its present prominence in Europe until long after the first findings.R1b originated in the Middle East.It is now the majority YDNA haplogroup of all nations we identify as having a significant degree of Ten Tribes ancestry and where Israelite Characteristic were to dominate.In Europe nearly all those countries with the most R1b are those we identify as Israelite and head the list as having the highest proportions of R1b in their populations.Wales 92%, Ireland 85-90%, France 75%, England ca. 70%. Exceptions include Spain and Italy (neither of which we consider Israelite nations) with ca. 75% R1b each.Some Israelite Nations have relatively low levels of R1b DNA e.g. Norway has only ca. 28%.It is worth noting that Italy was overwhelmed with non-Israelite immigrants from the Middle East in the early Christian Era.Two of the sources quoted above suggested that R1b came to the west in the Bronze Age.The Bronze Age in Europe ended in ca. 700 BCE. The dating to the Bronze Age however is only a rationalization attempting to reconcile conventional historical understandings to DNA findings.A much later date would also correspond with the DNA.The Ten Tribes were at first part of the Twelve-Tribes Kingdom of Israel. They separated from the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin and set up their own Kingdom. Later they were exiled by the Assyrians.The Exile in stages occurred according to conventional dating in ca. 730-720.A portion of the Exiles reached the west shortly after the time of their Exile. Others came centuries later.They moved from the east to the west.Numerous other peoples probably moved at the same time in the same direction.The movement of R1b from the east to the west may reflect these movements” (Yair Davidyi, http://www.britam.org/EarlyR1b.html).

I thank you for posting this, but, whether your analysis is true, where did R1b spring up from?After many years of studies and polemics, I must do my palinode. The answer is in a new book of the Bible recently discovered:

“Conclusion.It is possible to get bogged down in technical considerations.The bottom line is that R1b has not been found in Europe from before 750 BCE.Based on the limited findings we have at present it would seem that R1b did not reach its present prominence in Europe until long after the first findings.R1b originated in the Middle East.It is now the majority YDNA haplogroup of all nations we identify as having a significant degree of Ten Tribes ancestry and where Israelite Characteristic were to dominate.In Europe nearly all those countries with the most R1b are those we identify as Israelite and head the list as having the highest proportions of R1b in their populations.Wales 92%, Ireland 85-90%, France 75%, England ca. 70%. Exceptions include Spain and Italy (neither of which we consider Israelite nations) with ca. 75% R1b each.Some Israelite Nations have relatively low levels of R1b DNA e.g. Norway has only ca. 28%.It is worth noting that Italy was overwhelmed with non-Israelite immigrants from the Middle East in the early Christian Era.Two of the sources quoted above suggested that R1b came to the west in the Bronze Age.The Bronze Age in Europe ended in ca. 700 BCE. The dating to the Bronze Age however is only a rationalization attempting to reconcile conventional historical understandings to DNA findings.A much later date would also correspond with the DNA.The Ten Tribes were at first part of the Twelve-Tribes Kingdom of Israel. They separated from the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin and set up their own Kingdom. Later they were exiled by the Assyrians.The Exile in stages occurred according to conventional dating in ca. 730-720.A portion of the Exiles reached the west shortly after the time of their Exile. Others came centuries later.They moved from the east to the west.Numerous other peoples probably moved at the same time in the same direction.The movement of R1b from the east to the west may reflect these movements” (Yair Davidyi, http://www.britam.org/EarlyR1b.html).

This is the fellow that got booted off DNA-Forums for arguing L21 was older than A isn't it ?

.. so far the late neolithic cultures closest to Beaker are Baden and Globular Amphora. This is based on cranial index and upper facial index which might provide the "best picture" of what these people looked like. These are not antecedent cultures, but it gives an idea of where this physical type which became important with Beaker originated, i.e. Central and Eastern Europe.

We need to distinguish between the two types of Bell Beaker. Let's call them the Roundheads and the Stelae People. This chart once again shows the big difference between the Portuguese BB and those of Central Europe. The Stelae People were as long-headed as most Neolithic types, if not quite as long-headed as some of the Corded Ware types. Since they set off from the Carpathian Basin, we can guess the marked round head was acquired by other R1b carriers somewhere within or beyond the Carpathian Basin, presumably by inter-marriage with locals. The Baden culture will do fine.

Thank you. This study proves once again what a mistake it can be to rely on cranial studies for genetic resemblances. Bear in mind that Y-DNA haplogroup does not determine appearance. While it is fair enough to point out the resemblances between the Corded Ware and Mesolithic Ukraine (both doubtless strong in R1a1a), the fact is that the physical resemblance has nothing to do with R1a1a. The Mesolithic groups are all pretty similar. That resemblance does not mean that R1a1a was in the Algerian Mesolithic or the British Mesolithic.

I'm assuming that the Copper Age cultures of Italy all came from the Balkans, yet there are two different cranial shapes. Obviously there was a trend to round-headedness somewhere in the region in the late Neolithic. I doubt if it has anything to do with R1b except that some R1b men inter-married with round-headed women at some point around 3000 BC in or near the Carpathian Basin. So the round-heads of Gaudo are probably not R1b. They would have come from the Balkans somewhere before the movement of R1b up the Danube.

Neither do we have to believe that the Stelae People were not R1b because they lack the round heads of the Eastern BB people! They are wildly unlikely to be anything except R1b, given what we know of the distribution of R1b.

Believe me I invested a lot of time following this line of enquiry myself before realising that the markedly round cranium of Eastern BB was not really a clue to the origins of R1b.

I thank you for posting this, but, whether your analysis is true, where did R1b spring up from?After many years of studies and polemics, I must do my palinode. The answer is in a new book of the Bible recently discovered:

“Conclusion.It is possible to get bogged down in technical considerations.The bottom line is that R1b has not been found in Europe from before 750 BCE.Based on the limited findings we have at present it would seem that R1b did not reach its present prominence in Europe until long after the first findings.R1b originated in the Middle East.It is now the majority YDNA haplogroup of all nations we identify as having a significant degree of Ten Tribes ancestry and where Israelite Characteristic were to dominate.In Europe nearly all those countries with the most R1b are those we identify as Israelite and head the list as having the highest proportions of R1b in their populations.Wales 92%, Ireland 85-90%, France 75%, England ca. 70%. Exceptions include Spain and Italy (neither of which we consider Israelite nations) with ca. 75% R1b each.Some Israelite Nations have relatively low levels of R1b DNA e.g. Norway has only ca. 28%.It is worth noting that Italy was overwhelmed with non-Israelite immigrants from the Middle East in the early Christian Era.Two of the sources quoted above suggested that R1b came to the west in the Bronze Age.The Bronze Age in Europe ended in ca. 700 BCE. The dating to the Bronze Age however is only a rationalization attempting to reconcile conventional historical understandings to DNA findings.A much later date would also correspond with the DNA.The Ten Tribes were at first part of the Twelve-Tribes Kingdom of Israel. They separated from the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin and set up their own Kingdom. Later they were exiled by the Assyrians.The Exile in stages occurred according to conventional dating in ca. 730-720.A portion of the Exiles reached the west shortly after the time of their Exile. Others came centuries later.They moved from the east to the west.Numerous other peoples probably moved at the same time in the same direction.The movement of R1b from the east to the west may reflect these movements” (Yair Davidyi, http://www.britam.org/EarlyR1b.html).

Isn't there not a R1b sample retrieved from ancient-DNA in Germany that dates to circa 2,200BC? (Tested U106-) My memory is abit hazy on this.

We need to distinguish between the two types of Bell Beaker. Let's call them the Roundheads and the Stelae People. This chart once again shows the big difference between the Portuguese BB and those of Central Europe. The Stelae People were as long-headed as most Neolithic types, if not quite as long-headed as some of the Corded Ware types. Since they set off from the Carpathian Basin, we can guess the marked round head was acquired by other R1b carriers somewhere within or beyond the Carpathian Basin, presumably by inter-marriage with locals. The Baden culture will do fine.

I agree in that some of the Iberian types were less robust, more gracile than what it is commonly associated with Beaker. So, yes that supports the Heyd model. The Stelae people seem to be associated with a later and western range of Yamnaya. I don't see them derived genetically with the beginnings of Yamnaya further east in the early 4th millenium. This would connect R1b with the late neolithic cultures in west Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, and maybe southern Poland. Did the later roundhead population form the full Beaker package from the break-up of some of these cultures just after the Yamnaya push into Hungary. Any thoughts?

Given that Yamnaya was a widespread horizon, there is more phenotype diversity with them compared to their cro-magnon-like steppe ancestors and some were also brachycephalic. This lifestyle apparently absorbed various peoples around the periphery of the the Black sea. The Armenian craniometric/odontic papers demonstrate this with the movement of southern and mediterranean physical types moving not only into the Balkans, but also through the Caucasus.

Like I cautioned with Oetzi, it's not always a strong correlation with what we think about haplogroups.

Admixture is only one possible expanation for the strong emergence of a roundheaded physical type. Studies have shown that cranial form can change significantly in a few hundred years. This is why we can't rule out a steppe component yet. Climate and nutrition probably factor in somehow as well.

Getting back to Beaker, this type emerges seemingly out of nowhere. However, going back into the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic, there was a brachycephalic minority. Some hotspots of brachycephaly were the Baltic countries, Scandinavia, the Alps, and the north German plain. This type is more Cro-magnon like and wide faced unlike the later Beaker. These were all places where neolithization took hold later.

Here is a simplistic explanation of what may have happened. Looking at the earlier neolithic movements, the gracile type is associated with the Impressed Ware in the Med., most LBK-related cultures, and the Long Barrow people in neolithic Britain. It would seem that the earliest 'vanguard' of farmers didn't always mix with locals or when they did their population crashes/stresses blunted the emergence of any new phenotypes. The ethnogenesis of Beaker people and expansion of R1b must have formed behind the first waves of farmers primarily from more admixture with integrated U5 and H? females. Facially, many of the Beaker samples are gracile, except the British type which have a stronger mesolithic look. This may have been acquired in Germany or the lower Rhine as mentioned above. It is the unique combination with a broad headed and gracile elements that creates the taller, more robust 'Dinaric' type.

I agree in that some of the Iberian types were less robust, more gracile than what it is commonly associated with Beaker. So, yes that supports the Heyd model. The Stelae people seem to be associated with a later and western range of Yamnaya. I don't see them derived genetically with the beginnings of Yamnaya further east in the early 4th millenium. This would connect R1b with the late neolithic cultures in west Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, and maybe southern Poland.

That's right. I feel the evidence so far points to R1b arriving in SE Europe with dairy farming and filtering via Hamangia/Boia to Cucuteni. The latter appears archaeologically to be a mixture of Boian and Late LBK returning south. The more I read on Cucuteni-Tripolye (and there is a new book just out on same) the clearer it becomes that there was inter-connection between that culture and Yamnaya to the point that they melded eventually. So that might explain why Yamnaya falls within the Neolithic bunch in the chart above, quite a way from the Ukrainian Mesolithic. But I suspect that it would depend where you took your samples from. As you say, it is a mixture.

All I can say is that this map is very strange and does not correlate to autosomal "admixture" that well. Both may very be well based on genetics. If true I'd suggest that the facial morphology is far less stable. In other words, I think the morphology on this scale, evolves quickly. How else could we explain this counter intuitive, convoluted assortmentment? For example,

Why is CW Poland and Germany close to Jericho? Neolithic Spain right by bronze age Troy? Mesolithic Muse... Is that the Muse project which studies the mesolithic in northern Scandinavia?!? Lol, why so neolithic? More importantly, why is bell beaker at an extreme?

We say they are mixes of the other groups, yet they are at the extreme. So we have evolution apart from simple averaging! On the same note, I see that many of the "big players" are near the center of the map. My guess is that their spawns would become "outliers" based on evolution.

Lastly, this is probably a meaningless observation but, it looks as if left to right marks the passage of time. The top to bottom sorta marks the level of native north European (mesolithics, pit comb, catacomb, late neolithic Denmark, Eastern BB - which I think is the source of that "northern mixture" in modern Spain)

First off, thanks RR. I would be confused as heck if you didn't make that change.

Quote from: Richard Rocca

The two groups that are closer to each other than any other two on the graph are the Yamnaya (43) and the Ukranian Bronze Age Group (71). IMO this makes it all the more likely that R1b was never a major player in Ukrainian Steppe as the Bronze Age Ukrainians look exactly like the Copper Age Ukrainians and visa-versa.

Keep in mind the kurgans are very close to the CT culture. You think both have r1a and neither have r1b?

Quote

There are two Corded Ware groups, one from Germany & Poland (47) and the other from Estonia & Russia (44). The two groups are polar opposites of the Bell Beaker groups and appear much closer to the Yamnaya and Ukrainian Bronze Age groups. We already know Corded Ware samples have been confirmed as R1a and I think this further points to Yamnaya being high in R1a.

But CW Poland and Germany are far from all of them and they seemed to have R1a.

Quote from: Jean M

This study proves once again what a mistake it can be to rely on cranial studies for genetic resemblances.

Agreed. But I did make a post assuming that it was reliable, just to annoy polako : )

Getting back to Beaker, this type emerges seemingly out of nowhere. However, going back into the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic, there was a brachycephalic minority. Some hotspots of brachycephaly were the Baltic countries, Scandinavia, the Alps, and the north German plain.

Although the idea of Balkan influences in northern Italy has been put forward several times (BAGOLINI and BIAGI 1977), mainly because of the occurrence of female figurines and stamp seals at many north Italian Neolithic sites, the evidence of direct contacts between the two territories is very weak. In effect it is restricted to a few pieces of 1) Carpathian obsidian recovered trom two northeastern Italian sites (RANDLE et al. 1993), 2) typical Dalmatian polished stone chisels from the Early Neolithic site of Sammardenchia di Pozzuolo (D'AMICO et al. 1992), and 3) a few, Spondylus ornaments trom Early and Middle Neolithic, Po Plain and the Adige Valley sites (STARNINI et al. 1999), although these latter do not necessarily represent any direct relationship between the Balkan Peninsula and Italy.This picture contrasts with that currently available for southeast Italy, where the close relationships between Bosnia and the Apulian Tavoliere have been demonstrated thanks to the discovery of imported vessels at Obre (BENAC 1975) and Passo di Corvo (TINE 1983: tables 118-123). Nevertheless the scientific analysis of the Early Neolithic Impressed Wares has shown that ceramic vessels were never traded across the Adriatic, at least during the first half of the seventh millennium uncal. BP (SPATARO 2002).Furthermore, the only Neolithic Balkan culture involved in the neolithization of northern Italy did not spread beyond the Friuli Plain. It is in this region that Danilo Culture elements are known in form of characteristic, pottery "cult" items, polished stones and obsidian artefacts of Carpathian origin. If we move west, to the central Po Valley and the Alpine arc, we can observe that during both the Early and the Middle Neolithic only the concept of Balkan female "cult" images influenced the local ideological world. The best indicators of such movement or transmission of ideas are represented by the late seventh millennium BP, Gaban rock-shelter, mobile art, and a few Square Mouthed Pottery female figurines that recall both Early Neolithic and Vinca Balkan prototypes.

Admixture is only one possible expanation for the strong emergence of a roundheaded physical type. Studies have shown that cranial form can change significantly in a few hundred years. This is why we can't rule out a steppe component yet. Climate and nutrition probably factor in somehow as well.

Getting back to Beaker, this type emerges seemingly out of nowhere. However, going back into the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic, there was a brachycephalic minority. Some hotspots of brachycephaly were the Baltic countries, Scandinavia, the Alps, and the north German plain. This type is more Cro-magnon like and wide faced unlike the later Beaker. These were all places where neolithization took hold later.

Here is a simplistic explanation of what may have happened. Looking at the earlier neolithic movements, the gracile type is associated with the Impressed Ware in the Med., most LBK-related cultures, and the Long Barrow people in neolithic Britain. It would seem that the earliest 'vanguard' of farmers didn't always mix with locals or when they did their population crashes/stresses blunted the emergence of any new phenotypes. The ethnogenesis of Beaker people and expansion of R1b must have formed behind the first waves of farmers primarily from more admixture with integrated U5 and H? females. Facially, many of the Beaker samples are gracile, except the British type which have a stronger mesolithic look. This may have been acquired in Germany or the lower Rhine as mentioned above. It is the unique combination with a broad headed and gracile elements that creates the taller, more robust 'Dinaric' type.

I have read that the modern British are more long-headed than most other Europeans. If the Central European Bell Beakers were supposedly brachycephalic then can we assume that the British population contains stonger Neolithic elements, as in the Neolithic long barrow types?

Or, is cranial shape so variable over time that it's almost pointless looking at modern populations to infer origins?

Admixture is only one possible expanation for the strong emergence of a roundheaded physical type. Studies have shown that cranial form can change significantly in a few hundred years. This is why we can't rule out a steppe component yet. Climate and nutrition probably factor in somehow as well.

Getting back to Beaker, this type emerges seemingly out of nowhere. However, going back into the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic, there was a brachycephalic minority. Some hotspots of brachycephaly were the Baltic countries, Scandinavia, the Alps, and the north German plain. This type is more Cro-magnon like and wide faced unlike the later Beaker. These were all places where neolithization took hold later.

Here is a simplistic explanation of what may have happened. Looking at the earlier neolithic movements, the gracile type is associated with the Impressed Ware in the Med., most LBK-related cultures, and the Long Barrow people in neolithic Britain. It would seem that the earliest 'vanguard' of farmers didn't always mix with locals or when they did their population crashes/stresses blunted the emergence of any new phenotypes. The ethnogenesis of Beaker people and expansion of R1b must have formed behind the first waves of farmers primarily from more admixture with integrated U5 and H? females. Facially, many of the Beaker samples are gracile, except the British type which have a stronger mesolithic look. This may have been acquired in Germany or the lower Rhine as mentioned above. It is the unique combination with a broad headed and gracile elements that creates the taller, more robust 'Dinaric' type.

I have read that the modern British are more long-headed than most other Europeans. If the Central European Bell Beakers were supposedly brachycephalic then can we assume that the British population contains stonger Neolithic elements, as in the Neolithic long barrow types?

Or, is cranial shape so variable over time that it's almost pointless looking at modern populations to infer origins?

I know in my family, we are dolicho-mesocephalic range and heavy English origins. My dad inherited a longer head from his Gould side, and my maternal great-grandfather Beech was ridiculously long headed from the photos. Today it seems on average, that central Europeans are more mesocephalic. Perhaps only when mixing with the northern/north-eastern populations did the Bell Beaker skulls change.

I have read that the modern British are more long-headed than most other Europeans. If the Central European Bell Beakers were supposedly brachycephalic then can we assume that the British population contains stonger Neolithic elements, as in the Neolithic long barrow types?

Or, is cranial shape so variable over time that it's almost pointless looking at modern populations to infer origins?

It's variable and not completely understood. Haplogroups are not a factor. Long-headedness seems to be the default type in many populations. Other populations around the world are or have been brachycephalic for whatever reasons. My idea is that brachycephaly in Beaker is significantly, though not entirely, a result of extensive admixture under the right selective pressures between farmers and foragers. This culminated in the late neolithic right before the Beaker phenomenon appears in the west. I've read that climate could also be a factor and I'm sure it is for some populations. However, throughout the glacial periods, brachycephaly never becomes significant although the fossil record is a lot smaller. In the case of Beaker they were spread out across a wide area, in a relatively compact time-frame, yet the crania are more or less uniform and different from the earliest farmers.

By the end of the bronze age, this form was diluted back to more dolichocephalic and mesocephalic populations. When the Beakers entered Britain and western Europe, they encountered more longer headed farmer populations. It seems that as long as Beakers were a mobile population, the brachycephalic type stayed dominant. When they settled and mixed with the locals in the west there is a trend back to intermediate and long head forms. Again, this is trying to make sense of it from a migration and admixture perspective. We may never know precisely what else was involved.

I would personally still feel with the beaker type, if it really is linked to L11 and especially P312, and if the variance dating is correct, we would be looking at what was really a newly and suddenly expanded extended family or dynasty in the beaker period at say 2600BC-2400BC. So the peculiarity and uniformity is really a family trait. As a family trait it may be pointless looking for a source. I can see it being macro climatic in cause as they were dispersed across Europe among other groups who did not share the beaker phenotype.